Can Evolution Happen?

RUFUSATTICUS
The most fundamental misconception [many people] have is what the term 'evolution' actually refers to in biology and what evolutionary theory actually says. So I'd like to ask the following questions.

1. What is Evolution?
2. Where did you get/learn your answer to 1?


HELEN
Which kind of evolution are you talking about?
1. From origins of the entire universe on?
2. From origin of life on earth on?
3. Diversification of life on earth without reference to origins?
4. Simple variation?

Personally, I learned evolution through about sixteen years of school and then taught according to that paradigm for several more.
Then I started reading a little more science... that changed everything.


RUFUSATTICUS
That is the first problem with creationists. They seem to think that 'evolution' is a scientific catch all for 'origins.'
ToE does not concern itself with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. So to answer your question, 3 and 4.

What science did you read, to change everything?


HELEN
# 4 is verifiable every time there is sexual reproduction.

# 3 depends on processes which work against the very ends evolution desires them to achieve: time, chance, mutation, and natural selection.

By the way, I have plenty of references to scientific articles describing evolution as that which started with the Big Bang, or universe origins, so please don't tell me this is a creationist problem! You folks need to get your definitions in order!

What did I read? I started into genetics. I took a course in population genetics after that. There is no evidence that evolution of one sort of life form can mutate and be selected for enough times to become another sort of life form. It is pure fantasy. Not only does no evidence exist for it, but both cellular genetics and populaton genetics end up denying its reality.


JOHN PAUL
Are you telling me you haven't seen the word 'evolution' attached to just about everything, from the 'evolution' of the universe to the 'evolution' of civilizations? That is the problem with only using the word 'evolution'.

'Evolution' in a biological sense, is merely a change in allele frequency over time. I learned that in high school biology and college dev. bio. I have also been told as much from evolutionists on discussion boards such as this.
The problem with that is when explaining the ToE, which is much more than that basic definition. [The following sentence was scrambled, but the meaning was] ToE is, by its nature, a historical science, which makes it unobservable, unrepeatable, and so unverifiable. So the definition of an allele frequency change over time is not enough.

What turned me off to the ToE? The continual over-simplifying of life. If the living cell were just a blob of protoplasm the ToE had a chance of being indicative of reality. Now that we know more about the living cell Paley's arguments once again have scientific merit. Knowledge is squarely on the side of IDists and Creationists.
Why? Because the more we learn the more we will realize that any apparent sequence in the fossil record is illusory due to the insurmountable molecular problems as evidenced by Dr. Behe.

So I will ask you Rufus, if the purely naturalistic PoV of life's diversity on Earth is not indicative of reality, what good is it?


RUFUSATTICUS
RufusAtticus
# 4 is verifiable every time there is sexual reproduction.

What about asexual reproduction?


# 3 depends on processes which work against the very ends evolution desires them to achieve: time, chance, mutation, and natural selection.


What processes and how do they work against evolution?
You still haven't directly answered my question. What is evolution?


JOHN PAUL
Rufus:
There is not a single shred of genetic evidence that contradicts evolution.

John Paul:
OK present the genetic evidence that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism? Next state the genetic evidence that shows organs can evolve; the same for the nervous system (including the control center [brain]), respiratory system etc. You are fooling yourself if you think that random mutations (ie copying errors) culled and directed by natural selection could do such a thing- at least I have yet to read any evidence that says it can. So if you have some I would appreciate it-


RUFUSATTICUS
John Paul:
Are you telling me you haven't seen the word 'evolution' attached to just about everything, from the 'evolution' of the universe to the 'evolution' of civilizations? That is the problem with only using the word 'evolution'.

I specifically referred to biology in the initial post. Scientifically, 'Evolution' with out any adjectives refers to 'Biological evolution.'


'Evolution' in a biological sense, is merely a change in allele frequency over time. I learned that in high school biology and college dev. bio. I have also been told as much from evolutionists on discussion boards such as this. The problem with that is when explaining the ToE, which is much more than that basic definition.

There are better definations, but at least you know the common one. Next question: How does ToE step beyond this defination?

Evolution is completely verifiable.


What turned me off to the ToE? The continual over-simplifying of life. If the living cell were just a blob of protoplasm the ToE had a chance of being indicative of reality. Now that we know more about the living cell Paley's arguments once again have scientific merit.
Knowledge is squarely on the side of IDists and Creationists. Why? Because the more we learn the more we will realize that any apparent sequence in the fossil record is illusory due to the insurmountable molecular problems as evidenced by Dr. Behe.

What knowledge? Scientific knowlege is clearly against creationists and IDers. Fill free to provided scientific evidence that contradicts evolution.

Evolution is clearly supported by the scientific reality. You have yet to provide any scientific evidence for the contrary.


Originally posted by John Paul:
Rufus:
There is not a single shred of genetic evidence that contradicts evolution.

John Paul:
OK present the genetic evidence that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism? Next state the genetic evidence that shows organs can evolve; the same for the nervous system (including the control center [brain]), respiratory system etc. You are fooling yourself if you think that random mutations (ie copying errors) culled and directed by natural selection could do such a thing- at least I have yet to read any evidence that says it can. So if you have some I would appreciate it-

I notice you didn't provide any genetic evidence that development contradicts evolution. You just claimed that you haven't seen any evidence to support it. Your side brought it up first so the burden's on ya'll. I'll get to your questions in a few, I promise


EDGE
Show us your genetic evidence for a designer, or whatever you believe in.
Mutation is a known, observable mechanism. What do you have?


HELEN
How do time, chance, mutation, and natural selection deny evolution? Here is something I wrote to a student a year or so ago:

Hi Matt,
We all know God could do anything He wants. So your classmate is right about that. So what we have to do is look at what we have today, and what He has told us Himself, to find the answer.

First of all, taking them in reverse order, God has stated very specifically in Genesis that it was not a matter of evolution but of created kinds. So for those who believe in God and the Bible, that question is settled. The only other option for anyone claiming Christianity is to distort the Bible entirely, as every author in the Bible who mentions creation, as well as our Lord Himself, accepts Genesis as literal truth.

For those who do not believe Bible, however, the evidence is actually overwhelming that evolution not only did not, but could not, happen (despite all the texts and "mainstream science" and such). Evolution stands on four legs, none of which can hold it up: time, chance, mutations, and natural selection. Let's look at these one at a time:

1. TIME. There are two parts to the time question, both of which destroy the concept of evolution happening.
First of all, what we see happening with time is the disintegration and disorganization of things, whether it's bicycles, bodies, or rocks. Things simply do not become more complex through time without intelligent care and intervention. That is what we see. If time ever behaved differently in this area, we have no way of knowing. We live with what is referred to as 'time's arrow.' All arrows shot from the bow arc toward earth -- they go downhill. That is what we see.

The second argument regarding time has to do with biology itself. Evolutionists estimate that it took about one billion years for the first unicellular organism to mutate into some kind of multicellular organism with different cells, or specialized cells. Today, one of our 'primitive' cells, the E.coli bacteria, only needs about twenty minutes from the time it is formed from a 'parent' cell until it, itself, becomes a 'parent' cell. This is called 'generation time.' A lot of organisms seem to have a generation time of about a year, in timing with the seasons. Birds are that way. They are hatched one year and ready to be parents the next. Many mammals, especially, have longer generation times. An ape's is about ten years. Humans are about 14 or 15 minimum for the most part.

Now, follow this through. Let's give that first unicellular organism three times as long as today's E.coli bacteria. That's one generation every hour. That's 24 a day, 8,760 a year, or 8,760,000,000,000 or 8.7 TRILLION generations just to get from one cell to several differentiated cells for an organism. 8.7 trillion generations for something with a generation time of one year means evolution just ran out of time. And the mutations required for a bacteria to become a fish, or a fish to become an ape are enormously more than for one cell to become several.


2. CHANCE. One of the best chance arguments I know was summarized by Ashby Camp in his book, "The Myth of Natural Origins," which he allowed us to web here: http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm


3. MUTATIONS. Aside from Ashby's argument above, there is more to be concerned about with mutations. They are changes in the genetics of organisms that are already doing well! That means they have to be destructive changes, for the most part, simply as a matter of logic. And that is precisely what we find. About a year ago, National Geographic had an article on mutations and on one page made a SHORT list of known mutations which cause damage just in the human being. Here it is, from p. 51 of the October 1999 issue. Evolutionists tell us that the good mutations survive because the damaging mutations are weeded out by natural selection. However, I have never seen or been aware of a list of good mutations. The following is a list of known results of damaging mutations on various chromosomes.

Chromosome 1
-- malignant melanoma
-- prostate cancer
-- deafness

Chromosome 2
-- congenital hypothyroidism
-- colorectal cancer

Chromosome 3
-- susceptibility to HIV infection
-- small-cell lung cancer
-- dementia

Chromosome 4
-- Huntington's Disease
-- polycystic kidney disease

Chromosome 5
-- spinal muscular atrophy
-- endometrial carcinoma

Chromosome 6
-- hemochronatosis
-- dyslexia
-- schizophrenia
-- myoclonus epilepsy
-- estrogen resistance

Chromosome 7
-- Growth hormone deficient dwarfism
-- pregnancy-induced hypertension
-- cystic fibrosis
-- severe obesity

Chromosome 8
-- hemolytic anemia
-- Burkitt's lymphoma

Chromosome 9
-- dilated cardiomyopathy
-- fructose intolerance

Chromosome 10
-- congenital cataracts
-- late onset cockayne syndrome

Chromosome 11
-- sickle cell anemia
-- albinism

Chromosome 12
-- inflammatory bowel disease
-- rickets

Chromosome 13
-- breast cancer, early onset
-- retinoblastoma
-- pancreatic cancer

Chromosome 14
-- leukemia/ T-cell lymphoma
-- goiter

Chromosome 15
-- Marfan's syndrome
-- juvenile epilepsy

Chromosome 16
-- polycystic kidney disease
-- familial gastric cancer
-- Tuberous sclerosis-2

Chromosome 17 (done in detail as an example)

RP13 -- retinitis pigmentosa
CTAA2 -- cataract
SLC2A4 -- diabetes susceptibility
TP53 -- cancer
MYO15 -- deafness
PMP22 -- Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy
COL1A1 -- osteogenesis imperfecta; osteoporosis
SLC6A4 -- anxiety-related personality traits
BLMH -- Alzheimer's disease susceptibility
NF1 -- neurofibromatosis
RARA -- leukemia
MAPT -- dementia
SGCA -- muscular dystrophy
BRCA1 -- breast cancer; ovarian cancer
PRKCA -- pituitary tumor
MPO -- yeast infection susceptibility
GH1 -- growth hormone deficiency
DCP1 -- myocardian infarction susceptibility
SSTR2 -- small-cell lung cancer

Chromosome 18
-- diabetes mellitus
-- familial carpal tunnel syndrome

Chromosome 19
-- myotonic dystrophy
-- malignant hyperthermia

Chromosome 20
-- isolated growth hormone deficiency
-- fatal familial insomnia
-- Creutzfeldt-Jakob's disease

Chromosome 21
-- autoimmune polyglandular disease
-- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Chromosome 22
-- Ewing's sarcome
-- giant-cell fibroblastoma

X Chromosome
-- colorblindness
-- mental retardation
-- gout
-- hemophilia
-- male pseudohermaphroditism

Y Chromosome
-- gonadal dysgenesis

Mitochondrial DNA
-- Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy
-- diabetes and deafness
-- myopathy and cardiomyopathy
-- dystonia


The second thing that might be noted about mutations is that we never seen, in any multicellular organism, one mutation 'building on' another (I believe there is ONE known example in bacteria) to give the organism a new form or function. Yet this is exactly what evolution demands -- that slowly, through time, mutations add up, one on another, to produce a new form or function.


4. NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is the idea that some animals die and some live because of environmental pressures. I don't think anyone disputes that this happens. But natural selection, far from being a process which develops forms of life, is actually a process which destroys them, leaving the survivors to do the best they can. The surviving group then has less information in the population's entire gene pool and so it cannot produce as much variation -- which is what is needed to help it through the next environmental crisis. When a species has lost the ability to vary enough to survive through changing times, we refer to that species as endangered or, if it is too late, extinct. Natural selection is actually a process of killing off. And it cannot 'select' from what is not already there. So natural selection is really of no help to evolution if a person looks at it straight on.

I hope that helps. Biblically, and in real life, evolution simply did not happen. No one disputes that variation occurs. No one disputes that speciation can occur as a result of variation. What IS disputed, however, is that simple variations in color and small variations in size would result in a bacteria someday becoming a bear. Ain't gonna happen. Never did happen. Can't happen.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

RUFUSATTICUS
Evolutionary Biology is the study of the observed diversity of life. [Biological] Evolution is the change in the properties of populations of organisms, or groups of such populations, over the course of generations (Futyuma).
This concept predates Darwin by thousands of years. Darwin’s theory of natural selection provided the first verifiable mechanism for evolution. It wasn’t perfect and was replaced in the 20th century by the modern synthesis. So creationists who argue against Darwin are too late. The modern Theory of Evolution identifies the biological mechanisms that cause evolution. These mechanisms include but are not limited to mutation, selection, drift, and gene flow. Evolution does not stand on four legs but rests on the entire foundation of science. For example, the synthesis is built up on science of genetics, which did not exist when Darwin was alive.
I recommend that you go to your local library and read the standard undergraduate textbook, “Evolutionary Biology” by Douglas Futyuma. Now about your four “arguments:”

Time:
You are right. As time progresses the universe is seeking entropy. You are wrong if you think that this somehow prevents evolution from happening. For example, your argument even prevents the formation of crystals or post-creation variation. Life can become more “complex” because it increases the entropy in another part of the universe. Life consumes energy and releases heat. This heat escapes into space and entropy is increased. So no, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and the universe has not existed long enough to make life energetically impossible.

Your other ‘time’ argument is fatally flawed. You determine that it takes 8.7 trillion generations for multicellularity to evolve in an organism with a generation time of 60 minutes, but then apply that to an organism with a one-year generation time and come to the conclusion that it would take 8.7 trillion years for such organisms to evolve. You seem to be ignoring the fact that generation time is not a constant. Multicellular organisms did not evolve from organisms with one year generation times. Only creationists make such straw-man claims.

Probability:
Camp’s arguments are completely unscientific. His probability claims are based on cartoon biology. He assumes that beneficial mutations must occur at the same time in the same organism. This is not true. Evolution occurs in a stepwise fashion. With mutations accumulating over generations. Sexual reproduction can also combine mutations from two organisms into one.
Linkage disequilibria then preserve the combinations. This is why associated genes are often found next to each other, like the lac operon. He also makes the argument that evolution could not have happened because the result is improbable. Calculate the odds that any combination of your parents DNA produces you. Your existence is so improbable that you shouldn’t exist. Shuffle a deck of 52 cards and look at your resulting hand. The probability that you get that exact hand is 1.24e-68. Does that then imply that you didn’t get your hand by random means?

Mutations:
Mutations are not at all a problem for evolution. In fact with out mutation, evolution, which requires variety, cannot happen. A perfect replicator cannot evolve. You have the erroneous opinion that all mutations are bad.
Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and even less are beneficial. Just because an organism is “doing well,” does not mean that it can’t do better. The environment is constantly changing. A genotype that is optimal today might not be optimal tomorrow. This gives mutant genes a chance. You claim that we only find harmful mutations, but scientists find all three types of mutations. For example, there is a mutant in the CCR5 gene that increases a person’s resistance to HIV infection.
We also observe that multiple mutations do build upon one another to create different functions. Just look at any phylogeny. So clearly mutations are not a problem but rather a boon for evolution.

Natural Selection:
Natural selection only requires three things to for it to happen.
1. The population must have inheritable variation.
2. The population must also have variable reproductive success.
3. Number 2 must correlate with number 1.
These three are satisfied by mutation and differential success of those mutants. Despite what you assert, natural selection favors some phenotypes and discards others. Natural selection does decrease the variability of a population. But you seem to forget that mutation restores this variability. In some instances selection is too strong for a population to adapt, and the population goes extinct. This is predicted by Evolutionary Theory and is observed. Natural selection is the primary force of adaptation.

A question for you: If evolution has only happened after a certain point, how can I determine what that point is?
Looking at genetic evidence how do I determine if a dog and a wolf are of same ‘kind’, a dog and a cat, a dog and a mouse, a dog and a bat, or a dog and a fish? If evolution has only happened in the last 6000 years, how do I determine what kinds were initially created?


HELEN
You might say creationists who argue against Darwin are too late, have you not been aware of the number of evolutionists who swear by the man and his works? I run into them on a rather consistent basis. Barbarian, for example, has referred to Darwin extensively over the years I have watched him on forums. If you don't want us answering in regards to Darwin, you had better tell your fellow evolutionists that he is now passé.

You further stated that evolution rests on science. No it doesn't. It is a presupposition which tries to use science to support it. Real science - honest science - has let it down miserably in that regard. Genetics can offer you no way at all for a de novo protein to be constructed - that is per Dr. John Sanford, by the way, inventor of the gene gun!


You are right. As time progresses the universe is seeking entropy.

Please remember that you used that word. I didn't.


You are wrong if you think that this somehow prevents evolution from happening. For example, your argument even prevents the formation of crystals

That's a silly argument. Back it up, please. I never said anything about crystals or even natural processes - which is what controls crystal formation.


or post-creation variation.

baloney. You are throwing these statements around as though you had already backed them up somehow. There is nothing which prevents variation if that has been built into the system.


Life can become more "complex" because it increases the entropy in another part of the universe.

Oh come on! Listen to what you are saying! We'll increase entropy on Venus or Alpha Centauri so we can decrease it somewhere on earth…. In the meantime, please define what you mean by 'complex.'.


Life consumes energy and releases heat. This heat escapes into space and entropy is increased. So no, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,

Now you are bringing up the 2LOT which, please, has only to do with heat exchange in closed systems. Even given your misuse of the idea, however, it is not that life consumes energy, but that living organisms are designed to use that energy to perpetuate themselves. That's a big step you are sort of glossing over…


Your other 'time' argument is fatally flawed. You determine that it takes 8.7 trillion generations for multicellularity to evolve in an organism with a generation time of 60 minutes, but then apply that to an organism with a one-year generation time and come to the conclusion that it would take 8.7 trillion years for such organisms to evolve. You seem to be ignoring the fact that generation time is not a constant. Multicellular organisms did not evolve from organisms with one year generation times. Only creationists make such straw-man claims.

OK, let's take it step by step for you since you seem to have a problem with the jump I made.
One billion years to become multicellular - 8.7 trillion generations. Let's just go to a two hour generation time for the first multicellular organisms, OK? They have to mutate to something with a few more internally specialized parts, at least, not to mention some outer equipment along the way. Let's get them speeded up a little, so they get to something with maybe a tubular digestive tract at least in half as many generations (we won't even try to figure the number of mutations each step would involve). So let's get them going in 4.3 trillion generations. It's just that with only a two hour generation time, you have just added another billion years.

So when did it get to a week generation time? When to a month? Heaven help the elephants on their way to being! Gestation time alone would forbid their evolution.

So no, it's not a straw man. Even if humans had a one hour generation time you couldn't have gotten us evolved in 4 billion years. The argument holds. It is not the years which count, but the generation times.


Camp's arguments are completely unscientific. His probability claims are based on cartoon biology. He assumes that beneficial mutations must occur at the same time in the same organism.

No he didn't. Read the material again.


This is not true. Evolution occurs in a stepwise fashion. With mutations accumulating over generations.

Evidence, please, for the buildup of positive or beneficial mutations.


Sexual reproduction can also combine mutations from two organisms into one.

I know that. Happens frequently. It builds the genetic load in a population. Please remember that in expressed mutations 99.9% minimum are damaging. It would be nice to think they are all deleted in time, but we know better.


Linkage disequilibria then preserve the combinations. This is why associated genes are often found next to each other, like the lac operon. He also makes the argument that evolution could not have happened because the result is improbable. Calculate the odds that any combination of your parents DNA produces you. Your existence is so improbable that you shouldn't exist.

That is a fallacious use of probability that you folks have been trying to fool others with for years.


Shuffle a deck of 52 cards and look at your resulting hand. The probability that you get that exact hand is 1.24e-68. Does that then imply that you didn't get your hand by random means?

What you are doing is trying to postdict using probability. That is not the way it's done. Probability is based on PREdiction. In other words, what are the chances of you getting the 2,3,4,5, and 6 of clubs? You can give probability for that. But the fact is that when the cards are shuffled and dealt, each hand has the same probability and yet each hand exists. That is because SOME hand had to exist and the probability was equal for each of them. Thus the probability for at least one of the possibilities is 1. The same as for the existence of you.
You are one of the possibilities that could have come from the union of your father and mother. The probability that a live baby would be one of those possibilities is one. The fact that you are that result is then neither here nor there, actually. You were not predicted.

On the other hand, where mutations are concerned, there is a necessity - especially after the first mutation - for specific mutations to occur afterwards in subsequent organisms in specific places in the genome for something useful to occur. This is where probability mitigates strongly against evolution. Not only must that specific mutation occur at a specific place but the first mutation must be retained the entire time.

Do you have ANY evidence of this sort of thing happening in real life anywhere at any time? Please, please talk to me about evidence, not about 'could haves'. Thank you.


Mutations are not at all a problem for evolution. In fact with out mutation, evolution, which requires variety, cannot happen.

I've been arguing that for a long time. Barbarian tells me I only know the cartoon version of evolution. Maybe you would want to have a little discussion with him about the necessity of mutations in the evolutionary scenario?


A perfect replicator cannot evolve. You have the erroneous opinion that all mutations are bad.

No I don't, The VAST majority of expressed mutations are damaging-to-lethal, however. I'm sure you know that.
And, just for the sake of argument (in other words, I'm not arguing for it), how do you know a perfect replicator cannot evolve?

Of expressed mutations, however, it is a minimum of a thousand to one negative to positive. Let's hit the numbers here so people aren't fooled by the simple 'most' and 'less'. I am very aware that most mutations are, or seem to be, unexpressed. Actually, we are not even positive about a lot of that, are we? Since we don't know when all our genes are expressed, or even how many genes we have, it's a little hard to say for sure how many mutations really don't affect us in some way or another. Again, I'm not arguing against you per se here, but I am saying that we cannot substitute assurance in words for ignorance in fact.


Just because an organism is "doing well," does not mean that it can't do better.

The creationist presumption is that everything did better in the past.


The environment is constantly changing. A genotype that is optimal today might not be optimal tomorrow. This gives mutant genes a chance.

Go for it, mutant genes! Guess what, though? Even with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the HIV virus we keep seeing reversion back to the wild type or original! What we actually seem to see - what the empirical evidence seems to indicate - is that there is variation around the mean but that the mean usually seems to pull back the variations to itself (which is probably why it's the mean!) The finches on Galapagos are ideal examples. Their predominant beak sizes do change as per rainfall and seed hardness. Then, lo and behold, they change back again when the environment shifts! This sort of back and forth variation is not what evolution needs to happen.
Evolution absolutely requires some kind of continuous, direction change.


You claim that we only find harmful mutations,

Don't put words in my mouths. I never claimed that.


but scientists find all three types of mutations. For example, there is a mutant in the CCR5 gene that increases a person's resistance to HIV infection.
We also observe that multiple mutations do build upon one another to create different functions. Just look at any phylogeny. So clearly mutations are not a problem but rather a boon for evolution.

Phylogenies are predicated upon the presupposition that evolution happened. So you cannot use them as evidence of evolution! That is a self-referencing argument. You need to break out of that circle and show where such mutations building on one another are taking place within our actual experience so that you can validate your belief that that is what happened to produce the phylogenetic relationships which phylogenies are said to show! I need real evidence. Something we can all see happening. Surely, with bacteria this could happen? We have worked with over 2 ½ million generations of E.coli in the past hundred years. Are not 2 ½ million generations enough to find mutations which build upon one another to produce something new? Yes, I know we got one new metabolic pathway. I know we got bigger E.coli. But in over 2 ½ million generations, we have never gotten anything but coli! That is significant! Where are all your phylogenies when 2 ½ million generations cannot produce enough of a change in a little bacteria for someone to be able to say, "Look at that! That's NOT an E.coli! We need, in other words, to see something other than declarations that it has happened. Why do you know that it happened? Well, you know because of the phylogenies! How did these categorizations come into being? Well, because we know evolution is true and so we were able to build them!

Doesn't work, logically. Circular arguments are famous for exhibiting absolutely nothing, proving nothing. You need something from the outside to break in and give enough evidence for some element in that circle so that it can be used to validate the others.


Natural selection only requires three things to for it to happen.
1. The population must have inheritable variation.
2. The population must also have variable reproductive success.
3. Number 2 must correlate with number 1.
These three are satisfied by mutation and differential success of those mutants. Despite what you assert, natural selection favors some phenotypes and discards others. Natural selection does decrease the variability of a population. But you seem to forget that mutation restores this variability.

No mutations don't. Remember, most of them are not expressed and 99.9% of the rest are damaging. Population genetics posits that if only one negative mutation accumulates per generation, the population itself is in a state of error catastrophe and on the surefire road to extinction. There are so many problems this presents that there is no way the few putative beneficial mutations can make it through. Sexual recombination will eliminate most mutations, positive or negative. So what is to hold all the positives? What is to keep them from being eliminated in the general course of interbreeding through the generations? How are you going to fix each positive mutation in a population and then get them to build on each other to boot?


In some instances selection is too strong for a population to adapt, and the population goes extinct.

I think what you are referring to - and I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong - is that environmental pressure is too intense due to a rapidly changing environment and the adaptive variability is not sufficient to cope with that. Population genetics refers to one form of this as a 'fitness peak.' I have also heard the term 'over speciation' used. It is when natural selection has eliminated so much variability potential from the genome of a population that there is not enough possible variations left to them to survive a change in the ecology of an area.


This is predicted by Evolutionary Theory and is observed.

It was never 'predicted' by evolutionary theory! Please show me someone who was an evolutionist who predicted it before it was seen to happen! What the truth is, is that evolutionary theory accommodates it.


A question for you: If evolution has only happened after a certain point, how can I determine what that point is?

Try looking at breeding histories of various known animals. Try some hybridizing experiments yourself. And - although I know this is laughed at - take a look around you.


Looking at genetic evidence how do I determine if a dog and a wolf are of same 'kind', a dog and a cat, a dog and a mouse, a dog and a bat, or a dog and a fish? If evolution has only happened in the last 6000 years, how do I determine what kinds were initially created?

Wolves and dogs easily interbreed. We have Sam, a half and half. (And a weird one - he is calm as anything and a real marshmallow of a personality!) Coyotes and dogs interbreed easily. I don't know if foxes do - I doubt it. But at least we know that hybrid successes point to inclusion in kind. As to what kinds were initially created and where the boundaries are, that is the entire purpose of the field of science called bariminology. I have been to two conferences in this field - the most recent this past August. The work is quite remarkable. There are definite discontinuities in body type, dentition, and, yes, genetics.